United Workers' Union v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 2219

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd

(B2022/1232)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 19 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd

This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented nor objected to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Sharon Eurlings of the Applicant declared on 15 August 2022, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

An Order has been separately issued in PR744997.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Workers' Union v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd involves an application by the United Workers' Union seeking to conduct a protected action ballot among certain employees of Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd. The matter was heard by Vice President Catanzariti of the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the court was whether the union had met the statutory requirements to hold a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court had to determine if the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and if the notification period specified in the Act had been met. The union argued that it had been genuinely trying to negotiate with the employer and had taken necessary steps to comply with the Act. The employer neither consented nor objected to the application, implying acceptance of the union's claims.

After reviewing the materials submitted, including a statutory declaration by Sharon Eurlings of the union, Vice President Catanzariti found that the union had indeed met the requirements for holding a protected action ballot. The court was satisfied that the union had followed the necessary procedures and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been properly observed. Consequently, the court granted the union's application for a protected action ballot.

United Workers' Union v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established